NCLB: Act II

NCLB's testing rules have come under criticism from in Education Week's commentary page, during prime-time, and on the campaign trail.

But it's still unclear to me what an alternative testing program would be like. Would it be able to deliver results that can be compared across schools? Would it yield consistent results from one year to the next? Would its content cover a range of topics across the curriculum?

If, like me, you're wondering about these issues, you may want to log into a live Web event today. In it, the Coalition of Essential Schools will demonstrate and explain the way it assesses high school students' work on a long-term, in-depth project. They compare these so-called exhibitions to the defense of doctoral dissertation. The exhibitions are now required across the state of Rhode Island, and they could be an alternative to standardized testing under NCLB, the coalition says in a news release announcing the event. At the Huffington Post, teacher-turned-blogger Dan Brown calls the exhibitions a "brilliant idea to improve schools."

The Web event starts at 2 p.m. Eastern and 11 a.m. Pacific. You can register for the event at this URL. For those of you who can't watch live, the event will be archived.

EXTRA CREDIT READING: If you want to know more about where the Coalition of Essential Schools may stand on NCLB issues, read the report released last month by the Forum for Education and Democracy. Although the groups are separate organizations, the groups' leadership comes from the same pool of people (Ted Sizer, Deb Meier, George Wood). In fact, the Forum for Education and Democracy formed a CES conference a few years ago. I wrote a front-page story about the report for Education Week, and I wrote a blog item suggesting that Washington insiders don't expect policymakers to make changes as dramatic as the forum would like.

UPDATE: Bill Tucker from Ed Sector saw student exhibitions in Rhode Island this week. Over at the Quick and the Ed, he sounds impressed.

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 10:52 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Sen. Barack Obama didn't add much new to his plans for NCLB in his education speech near Denver yesterday.

He says he'd improve the quality of testing, give schools the money they'd need to achieve the law's goals, and create incentives for teachers to work where they are most needed. In one interesting aside, he said standardized tests should still be given in the school. Otherwise, his comments repeated what he has said before in various campaign events. (See entries from earlier this month, March, and February.)

What struck me about the speech is that Obama promised to end the "tired thinking" in K-12 policy, and said he would be innovative. If you want one word that defines how Obama would approach federal education policy, the word is "innovation." (For Sen. John McCain, the word is "competition.")

Alexander Russo didn't like the speech. Bigswifty likes did, but wants more specifics. But if perpetual blogger Mike Petrilli is correct, McCain has set up the education debate so that Obama won't need to be any more specific than he has been.

Read a transcript of the speech, which doesn't include all of Obama's extemporaneous asides, or watch speech below.

P.S. I make a cameo over at Campaign K-12, describing how the McCain campaign is being selective when citing my campaign reporting. And Petrilli has a one-word analysis at the end of this item.

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 12:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

While I was out last week, the Center on Education Policy released a report saying that about half of the states are delaying the pain for schools under NCLB. (See the edweek.org story from last week.) They've made it easy for schools to make AYP in the early years of implementation and are expecting (or just hoping?) that schools will escalate achievement gains when the goal of universal proficiency looms in 2014.

BoardBuzz and Joanne Jacobs compare this "backloading" to a balloon payment on a mortgage. Back in November, Kevin Carey released a report identifying such backloading as one of several ways states have made it easier for schools to make AYP.

With 2014 six years away, it's a safe bet no state will achieve 100 percent proficiency. When the backloaded goals kick in, states will use confidence intervals, safe harbor, and other ways to let schools off the hook. (Indeed, eduguru gives a math lesson proving that the safe harbor makes it possible for schools to make AYP without coming close to universal proficiency.)

When Congress does reauthorize the law, it'll have to answer the question: Does the federal government really expect all children to be proficient, or is substantial improvement good enough?

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 11:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

Back in January, Rep. George Miller told me that he and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy had a plan to reauthorize NCLB by this spring. That seemed like an ambitious goal, then. Now it looks unattainable. Indeed, the prospect of the law being reauthorized in 2008 dimmed last week with the news of the Massachusetts Democrat's brain tumor.

When will NCLB be reauthorized?

In last week's Gadfly, Checker Finn explains the arcane legal reasons why Congress doesn't need to act soon. Eduwonk lays out a good case for 2010. Back in November, I sent BoardBuzz into a tizzy by projecting NCLB might not be done until 2011.

What's your guess?

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 12:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

Back in December, I and other bloggers entered an extended dialogue about whether NCLB's Title I does an adequate job targeting money to schools with low-income students.

In that series of blog posts, Kevin Carey lauded the way NCLB shifted Title I money toward schools in the poorest communities, though he acknowledged that the formula isn't perfect. Now, he is a co-author of a new report examining school finance across federal, state, and local levels. The "basic flaw" at every level is that "money follows money," Carey writes in a post I'm sure he didn't waste half a day writing.

Title I rewards states that are capable of spending extravagantly on schools at the expense of those that can't, the report says. "The problem with this approach is that interstate differences in per-student spending are primarily a function of differences in wealth, not cost," Carey writes with Marguerite Roza of the University of Washington.

PROGRAMING NOTE: For parents or educators, spring is the most hectic time of year. The calendar is loaded with plays, concerts, parties, state tests—I could go on. In the midst of last year's May madness, I promised myself I would burn a week from my considerable vacation bank to survive in 2008. Next week is the week. I'll be home ferrying my kids to a variety of places and taking care of personal business (anyone want to help me lay insulation in my attic?)

If news develops—and I have a hunch it will—Alyson Klein or someone else from the Education Week staff will update this blog. My regular posts will resume after Memorial Day.

This is as good of a time as any for you to sign up for e-mail updates of this blog. Just enter your e-mail address in the box on the right and click on "Subscribe."

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 1:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

I'm at Ed in '08's blogger summit today. In that spirit, I want to comment on one NCLB issue on the campaign trail.

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., is spending time visiting states that will be vital for the Democratic nominee to win. In his speech in Missouri on Tuesday, Obama criticized President Bush's policies on the Iraq war, taxes, health care, and trade. He told the audience that Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., is "running for George Bush's third term in office" and would continue those "failed policies of the past."

What he didn't mention was NCLB. Is that a slight oversight or a signal that he'll back down from the anti-NCLB rhetoric he voiced in primary states?

Watch the speech yourself in two YouTube installments below.

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 8:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

It's not a waiver, or a pilot project, or a far-reaching package of rules.

But the Department of Education's recent "interpretation" of NCLB has the potential to have a significant impact on the way schools implement the law, Mary Ann Zehr reports in the current issue of Education Week.

The interpretation published in the May 2 edition of the Federal Register could force states and schools to change the way they assess and classify English-language learners. The notice tells states to standardize their definitions of when a student no longer needs ELL services and the criteria they use to report how well ELL students are learning English, Zehr reports in Consistent ELL Guides Proposed.

“The big theme of the notice is that we do mean to have much more consistent implementation so that all Title III-served kids are included in accountability for Title III,” said Kathryn M. Doherty, a special assistant to the department's deputy secretary. (Title III is "the conduit for most federal funding for ELL programs," Zehr writes.)

To comply with the interpretation, states almost certainly will need to revise their accountability plans.

Other NCLB-related stories in the May 14, 2008, issue of Education Week:
Randi Weingarten lays out her ideas for school accountability on the back page of the Commentary section. (See my March post on why I think her ideas are important.)
Report Cites Asian-Americans' NCLB Issues (When Liam Julian read the story, he was on the verge of tears.)

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 1:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Does NCLB lack "bite?"

When it comes to intervening in struggling schools, The Wall Street Journal says "yes."

Forty percent of schools in restructuring have done very little to change, the Journal reports, quoting Mike Petrilli about "a loophole to do very little."

"To solve a problem first you have to diagnose it correctly," writes Petrilli, who couldn't resist the chance to blog on the story. "And calling NCLB 'too harsh' is surely not the right diagnosis."

When it comes to setting world-class standards, Paul Peterson and Rick Hess say "yes," as well.

Compared with 2005, Peterson and Hess see little decline in expectations at 4th grade. But at 8th grade, states "are moving steadily away from world-class standards," they write in the latest Education Next.

They conclude that it's more important for policymakers to define what proficiency is than it is for students to meet a proficiency goal that doesn't reflect world-class standards.

"Those responsible for NCLB reauthorization, as they struggle forward, should first and foremost establish a clear and consistent definition of grade-level proficiency in reading and math, even if it means giving up the cherished but decidedly unrealistic goal of proficiency for all students by 2014," they write.

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 12:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Thanks to a new guidebook from the Department of Education, here are four steps to improving chronically low-performing schools:

"Signal the need for dramatic change with strong leadership ...
Maintain a consistent focus on improving instruction ...
Make visible improvements early in the school turnaround process (quick wins) ... [and]
Build a committed staff."

The panel of researchers that wrote the checklist said these are the best ideas they've found. But they warn that completing the list may not necessarily yield gains in student improvement.

"The recommendations in this guide are based on a collection of case studies of low-performing schools that improved student achievement in one to three years. The panel feels compelled to emphasize that the level of evidence is low because none of the studies examined for this practice guide is based on a research methodology that yields valid causal inference."

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 1:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

You wouldn't expect Charles Murray and Richard Rothstein to agree on anything.

Murray, a co-author of The Bell Curve, is a conservative scholar at the American Enterprise Institute—the Bush administration's think tank of choice for foreign policy. Rothstein, a tilting-at-windmills researcher who has tried to debunk many assumptions behind current school reforms, is a liberal that works for the Economic Policy Institute—the labor movement's think tank of choice.

But Murray, on your left, and Rothstein, on your right, agree on one thing: NCLB is bad policy.

NCLB is a "a monumental mess," Murray writes in a new essay for The New Criterion. NCLB is a "failed" law, Rothstein wrote in The American Prospect in December.

Murray on NCLB's goal of universal proficiency: "The notion of making all children proficient in math and reading is ridiculous." Rothstein wrote a 2007 paper entitled "'Proficiency for All'—An Oxymoron."

Murray in The New Criterion: NCLB, like all policies spawning from what he calls education romanticism, "asks too much from students at the bottom of the intellectual pile, asks the wrong things from those in the middle, and asks too little from those at the top. It short-changes all of them."

Rothstein in the 2007 paper: "The conceptual basis of NCLB is deeply flawed; no goal can simultaneously be challenging to and achievable by all students across the entire achievement distribution."

Murray and Rothstein wouldn't agree on how to fix federal policy. But they—and others across the political spectrum—believe its time to start over.

Hat tip: I discovered Murray's essay through Checker Finn's critique of it in this week's Gadfly.

UPDATE: Eduwonk says this debate over determinism is "the next hot thing!"

Jay Greene e-mailed me to say he fact-checked Murray and Rothstein in the Fall 2007 issue of Education Next. "The net effect of their arguments is to provide aid and comfort to those who would resign themselves to the educational status quo and explain away the school system’s shortcomings," he wrote in a story headlined "The Odd Couple." Who is Oscar and who is Felix?

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 12:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

Here's a question I'm trying to answer:

Would the rules proposed by the Department of Education make it easier or harder for schools and districts to make AYP?

If you have a theory, post a comment or e-mail me.

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 1:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Of all of the methods to track students' academic growth, the "value added" approach is probably the most appealing.

Growth models, and possibly the value added method, will certainly play an important role in NCLB's future. But statisticians and education researchers are starting to question the value-added model's accuracy and utility for making decisions on teacher pay and other important policies.

"If anybody's going to be using these things for high-stakes policy decisions, we want to add a large grain of caution here," Tim R. Sass, a Florida State University professor, tells my colleague Debra Viadero in Scrutiny Heightens for 'Value Added' Research Methods.

In ‘Value Added’ Pioneer Says Stinging Critique of Method Is Off-Base, William L. Sanders defends his method against the criticism.

Other NCLB stories in the May 7, 2008, issue of Education Week:
Reading First Doesn't Help Pupils 'Get It' with my blog item and Sherman Dorn's extended remarks saying I quoted him "slightly out of context"
Debate Emerges Over Proposed Rules on SES, Choice
Full Appeals Court to Reconsider Ruling That Revived NCLB Suit

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 4:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The future of NCLB's Reading First program is in jeopardy. It's been a target of Democrats since they won the majority of Congress in 2007. Last week's Department of Education report is the latest strike against it. The reading comprehension of children participating in Reading First isn't growing as fast as that of children in a control group, the study says. For more, see Kathleen Kennedy Manzo's reporting.

Rep. Dave Obey, D-Wis., who controls the federal purse strings in the House, wasted no time calling the program a failure. "Previous reports have shown that a political friend of the administration has a greater chance of raiding the Reading First cookie jar than the best program on the block that doesn’t have [a] special political connection," Obey said in a statement.

Flypaper's Mike Petrilli rushed to the program's defense by pointing to the study's flaws. Sherman Dorn wasn't buying it, calling Petrilli's defense "about as credible as Hillary Clinton's defense of her 2002 vote to authorize the Iraq war."

Now Petrilli links to a long interview with Reid Lyon, who explains why he thinks the report is flawed and inconclusive. Here's what Lyon tells ednews.org: "Reading First is the largest concerted reading intervention program in the history of the civilized world."

He concludes that the report's findings are:

not a cause for mourning and political opportunism, but a cause for deliberation and careful consideration of all the possible explanations—ineffective treatment, poor implementation, diffusion of funds, active treatment in the control condition, and many other factors.

It is also a time to be very careful in drawing conclusions from this study and to be very clear about its limitations in making inferences about the success of the policy and the success of the instructional model emphasized in the model. It has been the bane of education to implement policy with very little research foundation and very little effort at rigorous evaluation. Change is hard!

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 12:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

If you thought the Bush administration was finished putting its stamp on NCLB, think again.

On Friday, the Department of Education published a new "interpretation" regarding the classification of ELL students. The proposal would standardize how each state determines when ELL students are ready to exit a program designed to serve their unique needs.

My colleague Mary Ann Zehr explains over at Learning the Language.

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 4:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

President Bush and Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings introduced the 2008 Teacher of the Year at the White House yesterday. (See photo at right.) As usual, the president called on Congress to reauthorize No Child Left Behind. But, he added, "The good news is the act doesn't go away without reauthorization; it still exists."

What he didn't mention was Reading First. Maybe he and his speech writers knew the results of the interim report on the program. You can read about the report's findings in this news story on edweek.org.

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 2:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Alyson Klein attended a conference on performance pay yesterday and didn't expect to hear the chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee sing a sample of a jazz standard.

"You gotta give a little, take a little...."

Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., serenaded attendees at the American Federation of Teachers' conference. Miller, right, gave a speech on NCLB reauthorization, which is stalled, in which he reiterated his support for including some form of performance pay in the renewed version of the law.

He wasn't specific on any details, although he said any pay for performance must be developed with teachers and unions. But the clear signal of his little song—the chorus of " The Glory of Love" as performed by Benny Goodman and Bette Midler, among others—is that unions may have to compromise with lawmakers on this sensitive issue. The National Education Association and the AFT shot down the performance pay provisions in Rep. Miller's draft bill, released last fall

Miller also reiterated his support for using multiple measures—indicators beyond standardized tests—to measure student performance under the law. For someone who just a few years ago seemed pretty skeptical of multiple measures, Miller was enthusiastic, noting that colleges "are asking for portfolios" from applicants, not just test scores.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 12:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)